DASH mining in any capacity is officially dead

Do you see current DASH algorithm as unsustainable in terms of scalability?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • Total voters
    14
Status
Not open for further replies.
Checkerama

Checkerama

Active member
EDIT: Thanks for all of the responses. In order to really consolidate all that I have been trying to perceive on this post, I have created an article on medium with mathematical models and indicators to show the competition SHA-256 mining brings to x11 mining, and how this will incredibly inhibit the possibility of DASH global infrastructure worldwide. Check it out:

https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/hi...11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/hi...11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/hi...11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/hi...11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe

EDIT 2: Anyone interested in buying one of these 8x Antminer D3's is more than welcome to buy one off of me LOL. Still in the box, PM me to set up an escrow.

Let's get this straight - I'm not here to complain about my shitty investment into the Antminer D3 which I've bought 10 of already, but I want to be frank about what the hell just happened - in ONE FOUL SWOOP, Bitmain managed to flood out one of bitcoin's main competition by showing just how weak their hashing algorithms were in terms of scalability for its mining community.

DASH profitability.JPG


We are officially in the negative when it comes to DASH profitability with a 1500 dollar Antminer D3 with an average cost per KW/h. Now that's not the part I want anyone to focus on - but look at that DASH mined per year - 2 DASH coins. Now let's look at the hashrate, which has only very recently in its lifetime reached above 1000TH/s

DASH hashrate.JPG


In comparison, bitcoin is at a hashrate in the 5.3 MILLION TH/s range and its profitability stays stable:

bitcoin hashrate.JPG


Note that their S9 basic has a hash rate 100 times the size of the D3 hashrate, yet still gives us reasonable returns:

bitcoin profitability.JPG


From a mining investment point of view, it's obviously clear that bitcoin comes out superior in terms of profitability and sustainability as a business model. Most of the support and big push for bitcoin comes from its mining community - do you all honestly think your 5% governance structure is going to be enough to propel your DASH into mainstream limelight when the algorithm underlying it can't even support a few months supply of algorithm miners?

Part of the allure of bitcoin is that it created an industry under it - not just as a payment method, but also as a means of livelihood while supporting the underlying cryptocurrency structure and, in a way, propelling it into mainstream limelight due to its robust infrastructures around the world. What the hell did DASH miners get? A cryptocurrency whose profitability got flooded out by new technology WHILE using that same new technology? I'd like to remind everyone that we are only talking about 1500 TH/s. 1500... vs 5.3 million.. and its suddenly not viable to even mine it at all?

This is a serious issue in terms of scalability, and you're being delusional if you think no ones gonna take note off the lack of infrastructure DASH will be providing into the cryptocurrency sphere in comparison to bitcoin - we harp on bitcoin because of its shitty transaction speeds and high network fees, but we're literally killing DASH by not even accommodating to the mining community which supports its PoW infrastructure. In essence, DASH just hard-capped itself at the 1.5 PH/s line, while bitcoin will continue to improve itself around the world in terms of hashrate. You might have the software capable of bringing this to the masses, but without the hashrate and processing power to process those fancy 2MB/s blocks the devs have been promising, the DASH team just shot itself in the foot twice by introducing both cheaper network fees AND the promise that, somehow, 2MB/s blocks will be supported by its mining community. People are already dropping DASH mining like hotcakes everywhere - just look at ebay selling D3's for half of its price.

So, in conclusion, this is something that needs to be addressed immediately. The devs are just tip toeing around this issue by solving problems that don't even exist and building aritificial hype around the coin that shouldn't exist (why are 2MB/s blocks so important when you dont even have the tx volume or high tx fees to make it impactful?) meanwhile, their competition, bitcoin, is proving itself to be a competitor globally in terms of PoW infrastructure needed to support a global adoption to its base because, seriously, no amount of development work is going to transact thousands of trillions of dollars a day on a hash rate of 1.5 PH/s. Thanks for your time.
 
Last edited:
Few points:
1. You can't compare sha256 vs x11 hashrates directly, it's meaningless and says nothing about how one network is more or less secure comparing to the other. What matters is a _portion_ of globally available sha256/x11 hashrate allocated towards Bitcoin/Dash.
2. Blockchains work under assumption that blocks are mined by honest _rational_ miners, meaning that if you think that it's not profitable to mine and you are not here for the long run (when you expect the value to go up and pay for your current losses) - you just turn your miner off and stop mining (or you pick a profitable (x11) coin to mine, if you can find one).
 
UdjinM6 said:
Few points:
1. You can't compare sha256 vs x11 hashrates directly, it's meaningless and says nothing about how one network is more or less secure comparing to the other. What matters is a _portion_ of globally available sha256/x11 hashrate allocated towards Bitcoin/Dash.
2. Blockchains work under assumption that blocks are mined by honest _rational_ miners, meaning that if you think that it's not profitable to mine and you are not here for the long run (when you expect the value to go up and pay for your current losses) - you just turn your miner off and stop mining (or you pick a profitable (x11) coin to mine, if you can find one).
Click to expand...

I appreciate a reply especially from someone on the DASH team.

Now I think the misconception in your first point might come from thinking I am comparing algorithms... so let me be clear on this: I have not determined a network more secure based on hashrate. As a matter of fact, X11 might only need 1500 TH/s to be AS secure as the 5.3 million TH/s bitcoin is pumping out. This is not my point entirely. Instead, I am going off of the rudimentary definition of a hashrate, which is the measurement unit of the processing power of the network.

This is VERY important, because what you're essentially saying is that to any joe schmoe trying to jump into a network, what network seems more viable to support a global scale transaction process - the 1500 TH/s one, or the one with the 5.3 million TH/s? More hashrate in your network is good, but you're capping your miners at that 1500 TH/s line in terms of profitability (it does not become worthwhile to mine DASH at all after 1500 TH/s).

Meanwhile, bitcoin has found a way to not only multiply its hashrate power into the millions while retaining profitability and difficulty, but also boast a global presence in terms of bitcoin farms around the world (we've all seen em, they're beasts).

To scale, given our current hashrate in the DASH network, one should still remain reasonably profitable up to the 300,000 TH/s given the price difference between bitcoin and DASH. The DASH network magnitude is off by hundreds.

But while I have your attention, what exactly does DASH plan to do about the fact that their PoW is capped to a handful of miners right now (which have been sold only these past few months)? Do you plan to switch the DASH network onto the PoS masternodes completely? And if so, why even call it a CRYPTOcurrency? Thanks
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
excuse me for providing a link to a answer. looking forward to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your constructive reply - but honestly the link says nothing other than bigger blocks. Bigger blocks require stronger machines... which brings me back to my original point; how exactly do they plan to incentivize miners when their profitability is hard capped at 1500 TH/s? Who is going to process their ultra-big 16MB blocks? Thats where they're not answering it.

It's nice to dream, but without the infrastructure, you can have 128MB blocks that won't be mined because people don't want to waste so much electricity on making 5k a year with 1 MB blocks, much less 128 MB blocks.
 
Checkerama said:
... but you're capping your miners at that 1500 TH/s line in terms of profitability (it does not become worthwhile to mine DASH at all after 1500 TH/s)...
Click to expand...
We are not capping it, it's market doing its job. Market sends everyone a signal - MINING IS NOT PROFITABLE IN SHORT TERM, DO NOT BUY NEW MINERS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE MONEY.(Sorry for upper case but market is basically screaming at this point). Yet people keep buying them. I can't stop people from buying things, I don't have that power

One would argue that diff went through the roof way too quickly and people were not ready but we have nothing to do with this either, it's miner's job to try to predict profitability in X months and decide should he take the risk or not.

So either the price of mining hardware should go down significantly or the price of Dash should go up for mining to become profitable again. And we don't control either of this. All we (as a community) can do to "help" miners (there is no such goal btw, it's more of a side-effect) is try to increase Dash adoption (and thus increase the price of it).

Also note, this situation is not unique to us. Darkcoin was mined at a loss for a very long time in early days, those who believed in the project and helped it to grow were rewarded later. And btw, I'm not saying that this story is going to repeat again - no one can guarantee this, it's up to everyone to decide where to put his money.
 
I also want to make it clear that yes, the link details a merging of masternode and miners in order to determine hashrate, but also requires someone to hold a masternode to do it.

That means the person would have to have 1000 DASH... now worth 450,000 dollars, to be able to "mine" DASH. That's not even covering the cost of their complex collaborative system that would be required to mine it. And lets not forget... the whole point of cryptocurrency is to make it DECENTRALIZED?? This sounds a hell of a lot like centralizing power to me. You're telling me you made your algorithm "ASIC resistant" just so you could have a plan that centralized power to masternode owners? No wonder people think this is a scam.
 
UdjinM6 said:
We are not capping it, it's market doing its job. Market sends everyone a signal - MINING IS NOT PROFITABLE IN SHORT TERM, DO NOT BUY NEW MINERS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE MONEY.
Click to expand...

Did I just not point out that I don't care about short term profit? Its the pathetic 2 DASH a year that one 1500 dollar ASIC miner would use up. Who, in their right mind, would think "im gonna win everything back in a couple of years if I just spend thousands of dollars in electricity and equipment IF DASH blows up?" when they can just support a network that does support the decentralized mining infrastructure Satoshi's original vision had?

And its a soft cap - anyone mining further at this point is losing money to electricity. That's a cap, whether you like it or not.
 
UdjinM6 said:
So either the price of mining hardware should go down significantly or the price of Dash should go up for mining to become profitable again. And we don't control either of this.
Click to expand...

But you control the algorithm, dont you? You can change its initial values, you can change difficulty, cant you?
 
Checkerama said:
Did I just not point out that I don't care about short term profit? Its the pathetic 2 DASH a year that one 1500 dollar ASIC miner would use up. Who, in their right mind, would think "im gonna win everything back in a couple of years if I just spend thousands of dollars in electricity and equipment IF DASH blows up?" when they can just support a network that does support the decentralized mining infrastructure Satoshi's original vision had?

And its a soft cap - anyone mining further at this point is losing money to electricity. That's a cap, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a "soft cap" which basically forms as a balance of mining cost and token price. I didn't say otherwise, so there is no need to prove the point to me. I disagree that we (as a dev team) has anything to do with it or that we can somehow magically "fix" it. Again, it's a market. Players are free to take all the risks or not, no one is forcing you to buy a miner. Rational/lucky players are going to save/earn some money, irrational/unlucky players are going to lose money.

Re collateralized mining: I wouldn't take this too serious for at least a couple of years - it's not even formalized yet (or at least I'm not aware of such document).

demo said:
But you control the algorithm, dont you? You can change its initial values, you can change difficulty, cant you?
Click to expand...
I don't control it, I can't force everyone to upgrade at my will even if I would introduce new diff algo. And even if I would this would change nothing - there is still X amount of hashrate and Y amount of new money issued. If you propose to adjust the supply curve to bump the reward - I don't think it's a good idea, this will most likely result in a huge price drop and a complete loss of creditability. We, as a community, can agree to adjust the block reward to smth like 40/50/10 or 30/60/10 etc. (mn/miner/governance) through a hardfork though - write a DIP specifying the change, the rationale etc. and create a proposal for masternodes to vote.
 
UdjinM6 said:
I don't control it, I can't force everyone to upgrade at my will even if I would introduce new diff algo. And even if I would this would change nothing - there is still X amount of hashrate and Y amount of new money issued. If you propose to adjust the supply curve to bump the reward - I don't think it's a good idea, this will most likely result in a huge price drop and a complete loss of creditability. We, as a community, can agree to adjust the block reward to smth like 40/50/10 or 30/60/10 etc. (mn/miner/governance) through a hardfork though - write a DIP specifying the change, the rationale etc. and create a proposal for masternodes to vote.
Click to expand...

This is in theory. In practice, the masternode owners are a bunch of stupid who are unable to judge anything, and believe EXACTLY what YOU, the core team, are saying.

Vedran Yoweri said:
i'm not gonna vote positive on some core software change from a stranger, whatever it says.
Click to expand...
The above quote reveals the retarded way of thinking of a typical masternode owner.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
This is in theory. In practice, the masternode owners are a bunch of stupid who are unable to judge anything, and believe EXACTLY what YOU, the core team, are saying.
Click to expand...

Not to badmouth, like I've been doing this whole time, but I would have to agree - majority of your masternode owners don't have a business or scalability mentality when it comes to the opportunity cryptocurrency has to offer and generally vote whatever way the core developers say is the best way. Jumping into DASH early and picking up a cheap 1000 of them doesn't automatically make you a genius at judging the future of a cryptocurrency. The budget page proves just that (people vote for the most ridiculous propositions...)
 
Why should we change the reward system do to poor investments. I remember this same debate some what when btc first had the Avalon ASICS released. So many thought theyd get a lot but didn’t cause the diff went threw the roof. I mean should we also stop the 7% block reward decrease in February?
 
UdjinM6 said:
I agree that there is a "soft cap" which basically forms as a balance of mining cost and token price. I didn't say otherwise, so there is no need to prove the point to me. I disagree that we (as a dev team) has anything to do with it or that we can somehow magically "fix" it. Again, it's a market. Players are free to take all the risks or not, no one is forcing you to buy a miner. Rational/lucky players are going to save/earn some money, irrational/unlucky players are going to lose money.

Re collateralized mining: I wouldn't take this too serious for at least a couple of years - it's not even formalized yet (or at least I'm not aware of such document).
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying the collaterized mining portion (sigh of relief) and I would have to agree - this is a market with lots of losses and lots of gains. A gamble, so to say. If you say that the dev team can't do anything about it, then I don't understand the purpose of governance in your system. A hard fork on a governance structure crypto would definitely remove the single most technology that makes DASH worth pursuing, yet it might incentivize others to jump onboard the hard fork if it promises a better and more scalable solution that your current x11 algo settings are set to.

I will run more meaningful mathematical models, however, to prove my point... because I still believe that the current hashrate soft cap proves that DASH will not hold up in creating a robust infrastructure that would hold up global transactions.
 
Ftoole said:
Why should we change the reward system do to poor investments. I remember this same debate some what when btc first had the Avalon ASICS released. So many thought theyd get a lot but didn’t cause the diff went threw the roof. I mean should we also stop the 7% block reward decrease in February?
Click to expand...

Not the reward system I'm concerned about, but I will make the comparison soon enough. It's more about how the system handles high TH/s that I'm concerned about - a crucial necessity to DASH scalability
 
Checkerama said:
The only error was believing DASH had a shot at being a global crypto competitor should've known as soon as bitmain didn't accept dash for D3s. Garbage algos are garbage.
Click to expand...
the wisdom you accumulated here sets you free to conquer the world. i wish you well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top